2007-03-08 15:09:10 · 20 answers · asked by Laughing Man Copycat 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
I think you can't watch the movies expecting to see everything from the books. However, I like the first 2 movies better. Christopher Columbus is perfect for these stories. It's a shame that he couldn't do all of them. Plus, Richard Harris' presence is greatly missed.
2007-03-08 15:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by Jocelyn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first 2 ones were ok, I didn't like the 3rd, but I loved the 4th. It's true that when you read a book, you get to imagine the characters, the setup and everything and when you see the movie, of course it cannot be exactly the same! Also there are so many details in the books you cannot possibly put in the films, for they would last about 4 hrs each! But the essential is there.
2007-03-09 00:12:24 · answer #2 · answered by pegs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was just a little disappointed in the 3rd and 4 th movies, I know there is a lot of detail to fit in the movie, but I can't seem to convince myself to watch these over and over again.
Even though it takes much longer to read a book I would rather re read the books over and over again before watching the movies.
Oh yeah, I wasn't completely convinced with Dan's acting during the 4th movie, his sorrow seemed fake when Cedric died.
The visuals given to us through the movies are pretty good though for example: Durmstrangs submarine/sailing boat.
Looking forward to the new book and movie though
2007-03-09 06:46:54 · answer #3 · answered by MB1810 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well i watched the third film again last night and geezzz the acting is terrible, really awful. for me i much prefer books to films and i hate when even little details are left out. however the first three of the hp series are pure tripe. the fourth one was a marked difference, but all and all, (an although i enjoy the books, i don't think rowling is a brilliant writer) i much prefer the books. although don't mind looking at draco.
2007-03-09 06:40:32 · answer #4 · answered by pixoncoke 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all... the movies are like summaries of the storyline... It just tells the non-reader-watchers what they've been missing... One thing that disappointed me though is when they didn't show how Draco warned Hermione during the attack at the Quidditch World Cup...I think it has a major key in Draco's real persona...
Obviously I'm a Draco Malfoy fan....dork...
2007-03-09 02:27:21 · answer #5 · answered by hipandalive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't disappoint me, but like all movies based on books they can never be as good as the original books are.
2007-03-09 14:54:05 · answer #6 · answered by BlueManticore 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The movies were ok. u couldnt possibly fit all of the book in 2hours of a movie. but, i think the movie did the best it could to stay true to the book.
2007-03-08 23:33:38 · answer #7 · answered by Nanook~Maybe I need a longer Name?~ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, yes, but again, you come to expect this from smash hit novels=made movies. its just life. but c.c. was the best director that the series ever saw. he worked his little american butt off for the production! but i still love and support those movies like no other, even though little "harry" [daniel radcliffe] has done his share of nudity on stage- hairy much? jk ly harri!
2007-03-08 23:19:01 · answer #8 · answered by ♥LittleMissKnowItAll♥ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a little, but i have gotten over it. although, i do tend to mention harry not giving the twins his winnings whenever a harry potter movie discussion comes about...and the not fun bubbles...
2007-03-08 23:17:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not really. It's always different when a book turns into a movie. I've come to expect it.
2007-03-08 23:12:41 · answer #10 · answered by RiverGirl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋